forestofclarity

Like this thread, but open to all traditions. Self Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness, trans John Myrdhin Reynolds As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind," Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist. (On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara. And as for it’s being something desirable; it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles. With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers). Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself." Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self." The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self." The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind." Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom." Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood." Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol." Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere." Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality." Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything." And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."

-- the Buddha, Lalitavistara Sutra, recollecting his moment of enlightenment

Mod Note: This thread has devolved into quasi-personal attacks. Please decline from this sort of tit-for-tat in the future.

Done

If you think it's aritifical, try to feed yourself on dream food or buy a taco with imagined gold! Distinguishing relative appearances is the wisdom of discernment or discrimination in the traditions I am familiar with. Being unable to distinguish mental illness or relative illusion would be a problem, aka "the two moon problem." Some do, some don't. I try to meet people in their paradigm. Gaudapada is pretty on point with emptiness of conventional phenomenon from a Madhyamaka POV, and so is Shankara. Swami Sarvapriyananda is able to navigate it pretty well, and sees a lot of correlation. Do you follow a tradition, old3bob? It might be easier if you set forth just what you accept as authoritative.

Yes, in Tibetan nomenclature, we would say that things appear conventionally but remain ultimately empty. And yes, the formless realms (arupa loka) is not the same thing emptiness (sunyata). Within the conventional realm, we can also distinguish between valid and invalid perceptions. A hallucination and a mountain and both empty, but once has conventional validity in a way the other doesn't (which is why some distinguish between conventional reality and ultimate emptiness). Of course, some here ascribe to the Pali suttas in particular which tend to posit real atoms of matter and mind, a position rejected by Mahayana. One area of dispute among modern Buddhists is whether gods, devas, etc. are conventionally "real" or merely psychological symbols, or whether the arupa jhanas are actual lokas or merely states of mind.

According to the traditional sources, the formless jhanas are accessing the formless realms.

Interesting comment. All spiritual traditions have developed some sort of intermediary between the instantiated person and the fully divine, whether these are Messiahs, Saints, angels, Sefirot, mantras, etc. there is at some point a defined name and form that bridges the specifically appearing and the formless possibilities. It is also interesting that in many traditions this dimension is often accessed via the imaginal realm, through visualization and dreams.

Welcome!

Welcome!

I have a theory that, as the inner eye opens, one tends to see the truth more broadly. In Tibet, for instance, the political powers often adopted a very narrow view and used to persecute others who did not share it. But the truly compassionate ones tended more towards inclusivity. I see that repeated again and again.

FWIW, I think there is a difference between specifically debating politics and Maddie reporting on her experiences/fears and answering questions (thus the leeway). However, in this case, the posts that were moved were related to immigration, health policy, etc.

Mod Note: Buddhism/Hinduism Discussion Split: Mode

Welcome!

I wonder how one might phenomenologically distinguish between an expanded Buddha, nirguna Brahman, and panentheist God. I think there is something to that. There is a lot of similarity between how things unfolded with mystic Christianity and Buddhism IME-- Christianity even has protectors (i.e. wrathful angels) that appear to look after the teaching. There some different flavors. I mean, experience-reality-cosmos is what it is. But it seems like thought he bottles different, the essence is the same. I've had pointing outs in Buddhism and Vedanta that were nearly identical, FWIW (!). I think this is right, but also not right. I mean, the Traditionalists tend to prune away differences to create a mushy Perennialist model. But on the other hand, there isn't a Jewish mountain, a Vedantic mountain, and a Buddhist mountain.

Should be good to go.

Mod Note: @Lois, sales links, satirical or not, are prohibited.

Mod Note: Let's keep the politics in Current Events. I'm giving a little leeway for this thread, but full on political discussion should be in Current Events.

Welcome!

I've sort of changed my mind on the issue. I realized that the most important material thing isn't money, etc. but actually health. And not just for oneself, but as an offering for others. When you hear about some obstacle or issue some one is having, there's something that can be done. Or maybe we just release it out into the world as an offering. But even money for oneself--- if you use it for dharmic ends--- buying dharmic things made by people who now earn merit, or giving to teachers, or support monastics, or the poor, or supporting dharma activities--- then this is also a good thing. Plus the gains of the people who manufacture the metals, or deliver it, etc, it ripples out. Not to mention the inward ripples or the impact on those around me who may not be spiritual practitioners.

The true “I” — the consciousness that looks out at the world through you, as through a window — has many names: in Christianity it is the Son, the Logos, the kingdom of heaven; Jung called it the Self; the Dzogchen teachings speak of rigpa; other Buddhists sometimes call it “mind”; for the Hindus it is Atman. This Self — which is emphatically not the lower self or the ego — is at the core of your being. You can never see it, because it is that which sees. Saint Francis of Assisi alluded to this when he said, “What you are looking for is what is looking.” And Christ in the Gospel of Thomas says, “You can never take hold of it, but you can never lose it.” Paradoxically, this “I,” this most intimate and private part of ourselves, is held in common by all; it is the same in everyone. A Course in Miracles says, “God has only one Son,” and we collectively are the Son. Language itself begins to bend and break under this realization. How does our tidy system of grammar do justice to the fact that what is most deeply, intimately “me” is precisely what I most share with everyone else? The Buddhists say it is just as accurate to speak of “no self” as of the Self. Buddhism also doesn’t subscribe to the notion of a theistic God. Esoteric Christianity would agree that God is not a person in the way you and I are persons. God is Absolute, beyond personhood or nonpersonhood. And yet, Christianity teaches, God is capable of relating to us as persons. That is part of the infinite mercy of the divine. --- Richard Smoley

Or behind, by several millenia, depending on how one looks. I could never get straight chaos magic to work. One could say that the model wasn't conducive to convincing my deeper layers of mind.

Let's mix it up. I was surprised to come across this. Maybe not fully on point, but sympathetically so: --- Peter Carroll, Liber Null

Now you may!

Welcome!